Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bolobaby 12-20-03, 12:51 AM	OK, let's hear some theories on what the alignment of a villian like Saddam Hussein would be. I'm imagining that most people would limit the choices between Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil. One might be inclined to say Lawful Evil, but the description in the PHB says that LE "plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion" and "he is loath to break laws or promises." Does this alignment still apply or is NE more appropriate? Let's hear it!
Dr.Phil 12-20-03, 01:01 AM	i would have to say c. neutral. this is a man who has no sense of realitly. he has lived a world of his own making( well besided the last 8 months he was living in a hole in the ground like the coward we all knew he was ). he belived himself ot be a modern day hero and idolized himself on every street corner in iraq. he was one step removed from crazy. even now he still hangs on to the thought that his people still love him. if that's not the definition of cha. neuteral i don't know what is. besides he lived in a hole for 8 months with 750, 000 bucks. what the hell is he going to do with that money, buy a condo in vegas?:D
bolobaby 12-20-03, 01:13 AM	I wonder... does insanity automatically define alignment? Would it be possible to have an insane character of LG alignment? Hmmmm...
wdarkk 12-20-03, 01:23 AM	In 2nd ed, CN was crazy, but now it's just independant. CE, however, is where you find the frothy-mouthed psychos. Saddam goes here. Of course, I sense massive debate may occur.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-20-03, 01:28 AM	Of course, this whole discussion involving political figures is agains the COC. But before the big click, maybe someone should open a thread about the alignment of the insane.
bolobaby 12-20-03, 01:34 AM	Saddam is no longer a political figure. ;-) I'd be highly surprised if they yanked this thread. It would border on crazy politically correct nonsense. This is a valid question. I'm trying to determine how to align a villian, and Saddam is the perfect example. Personally, I'm torn between NE and LE, but I'm willing to entertain any theory.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-20-03, 01:41 AM	Just letting you know.... Don't say I didn't warn you.... But CN, yeah. Figureheads are almost always Cn because they just let thier advisors do as the please as long as they get thier piece of the rock.
Koga:The ninja trick 12-20-03, 02:27 AM	Neutral evil. Consider a man who would do ANYTHING to get what he wants, someone who would use magic items that rot the flesh, trap souls, and don't nesscarelly kill people but leave them half-dead corpses waddeling around with all kinds of hideous mutations. Perhaps this man took the PrC cancer mage. He owns a land and opresses them. So much as "I don't like his descision" results in being burned at the stake, people have no freedom, and they must show thier "love" constantly or die. So much so even thier refridgerators have to have his picture. He also has diabolical plans on the side to dispose of the other kingdoms.. And that be Saddamn. The Koga can't help a find a joke in everything though. XD *Sees Saddamn's teeth being checked out.* *Soldier*Man your breath stinks Saddamn! Someone get this guy a tic-tac! *Saddamn Huseighn*How can I take a tic-tac when my people are in bondage? *Other soldier*Oh shutup. You're so over-dramatic. :rolleyes:
Bifford 12-20-03, 02:30 AM	Lawful evil sounds like the best fit, given what we know of him through others.
Chachi 12-20-03, 02:49 AM	In jest, I'd call him Chaotic Jackass. In... Not jest... I'm leaning towards Neutral Evil.
ante_up 12-20-03, 03:47 AM	Alignment and the real world don't mix well. Alignment is a definite thing in D&D: certain acts are inherently evil. In the real world, Good and Evil are subjective and change with time. For example, slavery is now considered an evil thing throughout most (or all?) of the world. 300 years ago, it was perfectly acceptable. Stoning someone is considered an evil act here, in other parts of the world it is not. And the list goes on... You can't ascribe alignments to real world people, as it is based on your view of good and evil, and not something objective.
da chicken 12-20-03, 03:57 AM	He was a dictator who rules through force of law. He's lawful. His moral axis is beyond my ability to discern, but if the US media is to be belived ( :rolleyes: ) then he's LE.
Lhiannon Sidhe 12-20-03, 05:55 AM	I say LN. He was a dictator who ruled with an Iron fist and didn't tolerate dissendents. Definitly Lawful. Yes he executed and tortured people, I think that would make him evil if he did it for fun, but he did it because he thought they were involved in some plot or other to topple his government... therefore I think he's Neutral. If we were to say he was evil for torturing and executed his political enemies, than the USA would also be evil (At the time of the War of Independance anyway) as Americans tortured and murdered British Loyalists in the Colonies.
JasperDm 12-20-03, 06:02 AM	Lawful evil and neutral evil in positions of leadership, are separated by a few core concepts. LE = runs country into ground to gain power. NE = runs country into ground for evil's sake. CE = ignores country, and just pleases self. Clearly, as much as the US wants to demonize Saddam, this particular question falls clearly in the LE arena. Secondly... LE = abuses laws (those already in effect, and those he can pass) to get what he wants, but remains within their boundaries. As he commits his evils, he depends on those laws, and the ordained enforcers thereof, to keep him in power. Tax collectors, bankers foreclosing on the poor, land barons. Those willing to use the letter of the law to get what they want. NE = blatantly or secretly breaks even the few laws on himself, while expecting his opponents and detractors to act within the laws. This is closer to the old Russian leadership which outlawed hundreds of things, but the leaders had them in abundance, despite their ban. CE = Gives the country the bird, and sets up shop as the biggest thug in town. Laws are meaningless, what you can get away with is what is possible. The ruler destroys all that oppose him, ignoring legal channels to depose him entirely, and only focuses attention on those with the power to kill him, or knock him off his throne. (This is the weakness of the LE or NE character, the NG or CG character willing to completely bypass the law to remove him from power. The CE is more than expecting someone to approach with a weapon and attack, that's what he's counting on, as he maintains his power by might rather than by beaurocracy(sp?). Hence the approach of lawfully, as a united people, overthrowing or just ignoring him is the best approach to a CE. Just a side note.) There's the real crux. If Saddam rose to power legally, and his legal system allowed him the kind of insane power he had, then clearly he's LE. If he didn't bother to consider restrictions and prosecution by his own people, either secretly or openly defying the restrictions on Iraq's leader, rather than changing them, then he lies closer to NE. And if he got power by threats, thugs and muscle, and flexed his power, defying anyone, within the bounds of law, or even vigilantism to try to take it, then CE is a closer place to look.
Wizard 12-20-03, 06:10 AM	Originally posted by JasperDm Clearly, as much as the US wants to demonize Saddam, this particular question falls clearly in the LE arena. I guess they'll have to devilize him... :D
JasperDm 12-20-03, 06:15 AM	Originally posted by Lhiannon Sidhe I say LN. He was a dictator who ruled with an Iron fist and didn't tolerate dissendents. Definitly Lawful. Yes he executed and tortured people, I think that would make him evil if he did it for fun, but he did it because he thought they were involved in some plot or other to topple his government... therefore I think he's Neutral. If we were to say he was evil for torturing and executed his political enemies, than the USA would also be evil (At the time of the War of Independance anyway) as Americans tortured and murdered British Loyalists in the Colonies. I'd have to argue, because as a whole, the intention of a LN, even through more and more beaurocracy, is to improve the state of the nation, or at least maintain the status quo. One of the cores of LN is to make systems work, by working within them. If Saddam was LN, then his position's power would have been used to create a viable, well-oiled machine of government, even as a non-democratic monarchy. Without a voiced council, a LN character would smoothe out their systems, and make his country powerful economically and politically. However, he selfishly drained the country and ignored his people's welfare. He funneled funds into projects that circumvented the government's power and directed it into bands of roving military forces that were turned against his own people the moment they suggested renovating the government's leadership. A LN would have analyzed the situation, and bend to the will of the common man. Sorry, got to argue with you here, but even modrons didn't torture dissidents' families.
Nei 12-20-03, 06:30 AM	If this thread stays open, does that mean I can start a thread about Bush's alignment? Nei
clarkcd 12-20-03, 07:31 AM	This thread is still open because it's over night and the WizO's are all tucked snuggly in their beds. If you were to start a Bush thread, it would get locked at about the same time as this one does.
Wizard 12-20-03, 07:41 AM	On the alignment of the insane----they've got the same alignments as everyone else. Obsessive-compulsives are lawful, schizophrenia is usually a bit chaotic, though that one varies wildly. Good and evil are independent of sanity.
Yoritomo Katsui 12-20-03, 10:09 AM	Originally posted by Nei If this thread stays open, does that mean I can start a thread about Bush's alignment? Nei Bush is LE Saddam is LE They are going to be good Friends! :D
was_fired 12-20-03, 10:32 AM	I am going for somewhere between lawful neutral and evil. He only did what he did to stay in power and keep his country togather. We think it is evil because the media says it is evil while we ignore the fact that in the US a civil war was fought to keep the country togather against the will of many of the people. Sadam used modern weapons to mantain such order and I personally don't want to call Lincoln evil myself so I am reluctant to call Sadam evil.
Pyrolocutus 12-20-03, 11:52 AM	How dare you compare Lincoln to Saddam. Lincoln did not commit genocide. Lincoln did not invade other countries for his personal profit. Lincoln did not send children into minefields to clear the way for his soldiers. You, sir, make me sick :nonono:
bolobaby 12-20-03, 12:00 PM	Hmmm... I don't know if I follow on the LN line. If you read the description of LN in the PHB it says "reliable and honorable without being a zealot." I wouldn't ascribe "reliable" or "honorable" to him. There seems to be an element of cruelty associated with dictators who torture and murder their own citizens (and family members!) to maintain power. Comparing these acts to civil wars and such is hardly the same. I think there has to be some element of evil in the alignment.
bolobaby 12-20-03, 12:05 PM	Let's not argue about historical (Lincoln) or present day (Bush) figures that may cause some people some heartburn. I can't imagine *anyone* getting heartburn over discussing Saddam's alignment (it's like discussing Hitler's alignment in many respects). He's a safe figure and I only used him as an example because I didn't want to have to type out a bio of him and his reign without naming names. I asked this question as a fair exploration of the subtle differences of alignment that exist for a cruel dictator, NOT so people could start offending one another by bringing other people into the mix. Stay on target.
WizO_Catoblepas 12-20-03, 12:30 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Of course, this whole discussion involving political figures is against the COC. Yeah, this pretty much cover it. I'll close te thread at this time.